(1) The court shall have the power to remove a personal representative for cause at any time. Removal proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of section 15-10-503.
(2) Unless the decedent's will directs otherwise, a personal representative appointed at the decedent's domicile, incident to securing appointment of himself or herself or his or her nominee as ancillary personal representative, may obtain removal of another who was appointed personal representative in this state to administer local assets.
Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1582, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 153-3-611. L. 2008: Entire section amended, p. 482, § 4, effective July 1.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Practical Administrative Problems in Average-Sized Estates", see 27 Dicta 285 (1950). For article, "Trusts and Estates", see 30 Dicta 435 (1953). For article, "Termination of a Personal Representative", see 19 Colo. Law. 213 (1990).
Annotator's note. Since § 15-12-611 is similar to repealed § 152-10-8, CRS 53, CSA, C. 176, § 90, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.
The power to remove an administrator is largely discretionary. The action of a court should not be interfered with by any other court, unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Shore v. Wall, 22 Colo. App. 146, 122 P. 1124 (1912); Canaday v. Kauffman, 140 Colo. 165, 342 P.2d 1027 (1959); In re Estate of Jefferson v. Hough, 140 Colo. 347, 344 P.2d 179 (1959).
The court may terminate a personal representative at any time for various reasons including mismanagement of the estate's assets or failure to perform any duty pertaining to the office. In the Estate of Sandstead, 897 P.2d 883 (Colo. App. 1995).
Dilatoriness of an administrator in filing inventories or making reports is not ground for removal. In re Estate of Jefferson v. Hough, 140 Colo. 347, 344 P.2d 179 (1959).
The language of this section is sufficiently broad to admit proof of any waste or mismanagement. Miller v. Hider, 9 Colo. App. 50, 47 P. 406 (1896).
Failure to collect debts is mismanagement. If an executor or administrator should refuse to collect debts due to the estate from others, he would be justly chargeable with mismanagement; and, surely, his refusal to account to the estate for money owing to it by himself, cannot be characterized by any milder term. Haines v. Christie, 17 Colo. App. 272, 68 P. 669 (1902).
Court, therefore, may commit administration to another in proper situation. The law is a jealous guardian of the estates of deceased persons, and when the appointment of the executor named in the will of the decedent may endanger the estate, or lead to embarrassment in the administration, it is within the power of the court, and is its clear duty, to commit administration to another. Deeble v. Alerton, 58 Colo. 166, 143 P. 1096 (1914).
Bank was not subject to removal from its position as administrator where, knowing of its appointment as executor from copy of will, it began probate proceedings in regard to the will even though the original of the will was lost. In re Estate of Enz, 33 Colo. App. 24, 515 P.2d 1133 (1973).